Wilkinson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Wilkinson v. State

374 So. 2d 400

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedAugust 24, 1979

Docket78-690

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 374 So. 2d 400 (Wilkinson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilkinson v. State, 374 So. 2d 400 (Ala. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Writ Denied. In denying this writ we point out that in petition for writ of certiorari, the petitioner contends there is a "conflict" with a prior decision of our Court in Danielsv. State, 290 Ala. 316, 276 So.2d 441 (1973), because in that case we held there were six exceptions to the warrant requirement and that an inventory search was not among the exceptions. It is true that when we wrote Daniels in 1973 "inventory" was not among the exceptions we listed for the very good reason that South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364,96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) had not been decided. There, the Court held that an inventory search, following a routine practice of securing and inventorying automobile's contents when the same are impounded by local police departments, is not an unreasonable search and seizure. This, then, is a seventh exception to the warrant requirement.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur. *Page 401

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Writ Denied. In denying this writ we point out that in petition for writ of certiorari, the petitioner contends there is a "conflict" with a prior decision of our Court in Danielsv. State, 290 Ala. 316, 276 So.2d 441 (1973), because in that case we held there were six exceptions to the warrant requirement and that an inventory search was not among the exceptions. It is true that when we wrote Daniels in 1973 "inventory" was not among the exceptions we listed for the very good reason that South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364,96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) had not been decided. There, the Court held that an inventory search, following a routine practice of securing and inventorying automobile's contents when the same are impounded by local police departments, is not an unreasonable search and seizure. This, then, is a seventh exception to the warrant requirement.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur. *Page 401

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 So. 2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-state-ala-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack